DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ of 07/29/2024 and 10/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim ends with the word “and.” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meissl (US 20170165898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meissl teaches an imprinting method (P0026) comprising: moving a template having a shaping surface towards a substrate based on first predetermined position information (P0063); upon reaching a first predetermined distance from the substrate, switching from moving the template based on the first predetermined position information to moving the template based on first predetermined force information (P0064); contacting the shaping surface with formable material on the substrate such that the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate, moving the template towards a substrate based on second predetermined position information (P0063-64); upon reaching a second predetermined distance from the substrate, switching from moving the template based on the second predetermined position information to moving the template based on second predetermined force information; contacting, with the shaping surface, the formable material on the substrate, wherein the shaping surface overlaps an edge of the substrate (P0064); wherein the second predetermined distance is equal to the first predetermined distance that is adjusted based on at least one control parameter associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the shaping surface overlaps the edge of the substrate (P0067, back pressure).
Regarding claim 2, Meissl teaches the at least one control parameter is a value selected from the group consisting of a backpressure control value, a template tilt control value, and a substrate pressure control value (P0067, back pressure).
Regarding claim 3, Meissl teaches the at least one control parameter is a backpressure control value (P0067, back pressure).
Regarding claim 4, Meissl teaches the backpressure control value is a predetermined backpressure applied to the template at the time the template initially contacts the formable material (P0067).
Regarding claim 5, Meissl teaches increasing a backpressure applied to the template prior to the template reaching the second predetermined distance from the substrate (P0067).
Regarding claim 7, Meissl teaches the first predetermined distance is adjusted based on at least one control parameter associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate (P0053, P0063, fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, Meissl teaches the at least one control parameter associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate is a backpressure control value (P0067).
Regarding claim 9, Meissl teaches the at least one control parameter associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the shaping surface overlaps the edge of the substrate is a backpressure control value, and wherein the first predetermined distance is adjusted based on a difference between the backpressure control value associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate and the backpressure control value associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the shaping surface overlaps the edge of the substrate (P0064-67).
Regarding claims 12-14, Meissl teaches that the shaping surface overlaps the substrate greater or less than 50% (fig.1, partial fields) which the claimed values are full within, i.e. in the case that the shaping surface overlaps an edge of the substrate, 85% or less of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate, 50% or less of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate, 35% or less of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Meissl teaches that the processor 254 can send signals to the imprint head 236, the stage 218, or both and that this operation can be monitored using a pressure sensor within the template holder 228 and by measuring a distance between (1) the substrate 100 or the substrate holder 214 and (2) the template 218 or the template holder 228 (P0064) which meets the limitation of determining that the template has reached the second predetermined distance by measuring a position of a template chuck holding the template as the substrate holder is a chuck (P0031).
Regarding claim 17, Meissl teaches second predetermined position information is position trajectory information and the second predetermined force information is force trajectory information (P0067-68).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meissl (US 20170165898 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Meissl teaches an imprinting method (P0026) comprising: moving a template with a shaping surface towards a substrate based on predetermined position information (P0063); upon reaching a predetermined distance from the substrate, switching from moving the template based on the predetermined position information to moving the template based on predetermined force information (P0064); contacting, with the shaping surface, formable material on the substrate, wherein the shaping surface overlaps an edge of the substrate (P0063-64), wherein the predetermined distance is equal to a reference distance from the substrate that is adjusted based on at least one control parameter associated with contacting the shaping surface with the partial overlap amount (P0067, back pressure), and wherein the reference distance is a distance from the substrate where, in a reference imprinting in which the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate, movement of the template switches from being moved based on reference position information to being moved based on reference force information (P0067-68).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meissl (US 20170165898 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Meissl teaches an imprinting system (P0036) comprising: one or more memory (P0037, 256); and one or more processors (P0037, 254) configured to: move a template having a shaping surface towards a substrate based on first predetermined position information (P0063); upon reaching a first predetermined distance from the substrate, switch from moving the template based on the first predetermined position information to moving the template based on first predetermined force information (P0064); move the shaping surface with formable material on the substrate such that the total surface area of the shaping surface overlaps the substrate (P0067), move the template towards a substrate based on second predetermined position information; upon reaching a second predetermined distance from the substrate, switch from moving the template based on the second predetermined position information to moving the template based on second predetermined force information (P0063-64); contact, with the shaping surface, the formable material on the substrate (P0064), wherein the shaping surface overlaps an edge of the substrate (P0067), wherein the second predetermined distance is equal to the first predetermined distance that is adjusted based on at least one control parameter associated with contacting the formable material with the shaping surface when the shaping surface overlaps the edge of the substrate (P0067, back pressure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Meissl (US 20170165898 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Meissl teaches a method of manufacturing an article, from a substrate on which a formable material was imprinted according to the method of claim 1, further comprising: exposing the formable material under the template to actinic radiation (P0068).
Meissl states that partial fields are of particular interest in the semiconductor industry, particularly as the size of the substrate becomes larger, such as 300 mm diameter and larger semiconductor wafers (P0026) but is not specific to post processing steps such as processing the substrate; and forming the article from the processed substrate, however, this it would be obvious to process a prepared imprinted wafer/substrate as resulting from the method of Meissl to form an article. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-11, 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Pertinent art not relied upon: Lino (US 20210132516) and Kimura (US 20130015598).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights